Babe Ruth Rookie

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

How Beckett could even come to that nonsensical conclusion demonstrates a serious lack of knowledge over the very same hobby it purports to play a significant part in.

Someone else can correct me if I've got any of this wrong, but Beckett's Rookie Card designation has always been given to cards they consider the first mainstream card of that player. The Sporting News cards were promotional cards while the Goudey cards were not. Even though they were issued well after his career started, they're often considered rookies because of that.

What I've never understood is the logic used in the case of the Ruth Sporting News card doesn't generally hold true when compared to other players. For example, Stan Musial has pre-1948 major league cards such as the 1947 Bond Bread version. Yet if you talk to most 100 people, 95 will consider his 1948 Bowman his rookie card. If the Sporting News card is Ruth's true rookie card, then there are a slew of key cards for other players that have been long recognized as rookies that really aren't.

I don't have a preference for one over the other, and to me, it doesn't really matter. But there's no industry consistency to these sorts of things.

[nolemmings]

What are promotional cards?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

Someone else can correct me if I've got any of this wrong, but Beckett's Rookie Card designation has always been given to cards they consider the first mainstream card of that player. The Sporting News cards were promotional cards while the Goudey cards were not. Even though they were issued well after his career started, they're often considered rookies because of that.

What I've never understood is the logic used in the case of the Ruth Sporting News card doesn't generally hold true when compared to other players. For example, Stan Musial has pre-1948 major league cards such as the 1947 Bond Bread version. Yet if you talk to most 100 people, 95 will consider his 1948 Bowman his rookie card. If the Sporting News card is Ruth's true rookie card, then there are a slew of key cards for other players that have been long recognized as rookies that really aren't.

I don't have a preference for one over the other, and to me, it doesn't really matter. But there's no industry consistency to these sorts of things.

noone in their right mind would consider a ruth goudey his rookie...I don't care what silly logic you use. dozens and dozens and dozens of earlier ruth cards exist...not all of which are "promotional" whatever that means.

I think there are pretty good standardizations for those who collect rookie cards...granted there are exceptions where collectors disagree in some cases...or there are multiple cards considered rookies...BUT...the only question regarding Ruth's rookie is whether it is the sporting news and the likes or the balt news.

Someone is really going to call a card issued 2 years prior to ruths retirement his rookie? that's just dumb and incorrect!

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I don't care what silly logic you use. dozens and dozens and dozens of earlier ruth cards exist...not all of which are "promotional" whatever that means.

Like I said, it's not my logic. I tried to go out of my way to say that, actually. I simply gave Beckett's rationale, which is what I've heard echoed over the years numerous times when this subject has come up elsewhere.

'Promotional' cards refers to cards used to promote something (i.e. the Sporting News cards had advertisements on the back). (Edited to add in addition to the blank backs, obviously)

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

This is obviously Ruth's rookie card.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

noone in their right mind would consider a ruth goudey his rookie...I don't care what silly logic you use. dozens and dozens and dozens of earlier ruth cards exist...not all of which are "promotional" whatever that means.

I think there are pretty good standardizations for those who collect rookie cards...granted there are exceptions where collectors disagree in some cases...or there are multiple cards considered rookies...BUT...the only question regarding Ruth's rookie is whether it is the sporting news and the likes or the balt news.

Someone is really going to call a card issued 2 years prior to ruths retirement his rookie? that's just dumb and incorrect!

This is not true. There are many collectors and dealers who don't consider the Sporting News a Rc. It doesn't fit the definition of a Rc. For many years it wasn't considered a Rc. The best that I can figure out is this is a product of the auction house era of the hobby. I don't know what your opinion of "standardizations for those who collect rookie cards" is, but it obviously isn't the long held hobby definition.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by rats60

This is not true. There are many collectors and dealers who don't consider the Sporting News a Rc. It doesn't fit the definition of a Rc. For many years it wasn't considered a Rc. The best that I can figure out is this is a product of the auction house era of the hobby. I don't know what your opinion of "standardizations for those who collect rookie cards" is, but it obviously isn't the long held hobby definition.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider his rookie card?

[MetsBaseball1973]

Ah, up above we see the old, "Well there are a bunch of us who still think the world is flat!" routine.

Humanity has a funny way of-- occasionally-- getting smarter as time goes on. Don't know who these "rookie card deniers" are, but the simple fact is that to the overwhelming majority of hobbyists, a rookie card is the first appearance of a player in Major League uniform-- some might choose to add that it be a card nationally distributed. That's exactly what the M101 Ruth is.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by MetsBaseball1973

Ah, up above we see the old, "Well there are a bunch of us who still think the world is flat!" routine.

Humanity has a funny way of-- occasionally-- getting smarter as time goes on. Don't know who these "rookie card deniers" are, but the simple fact is that to the overwhelming majority of hobbyists, a rookie card is the first appearance of a player in Major League uniform-- some might choose to add that it be a card nationally distributed. That's exactly what the M101 Ruth is.

Except it wasn't nationally distributed. For example, being available only in San Francisco and not in Los Angeles or anywhere else in the state of California doesn't make the set distributed in California.

The cards were bought as complete sets from the printer by a few individual business and given away as premiums in a few locations. It does not meet the definition of nationally distributed or rookie card.

As far as "your definition" of rookie card, I guess that you don't think the 1992 Bowman Mariano Rivera is a rookie card, but the 1975 SSPC George Brett is.

[MetsBaseball1973]

I think the M101 is Babe Ruth's rookie card, is what I think. Curious what you believe bets fits that slot?

[1880nonsports]

an apt comment that has multiple applications here and elsewhere. Beware what the coming digital era will bring.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by rats60

This is not true. There are many collectors and dealers who don't consider the Sporting News a Rc. It doesn't fit the definition of a Rc. For many years it wasn't considered a Rc. The best that I can figure out is this is a product of the auction house era of the hobby. I don't know what your opinion of "standardizations for those who collect rookie cards" is, but it obviously isn't the long held hobby definition.

From what I have heard, this whole collecting rookie cards didn't even exist in the hobby until the 70s/80s where it was perpetuated by some card dealers in order to increase business. So, it's not like kids in the 1930s were jumping for joy after opening a 1933 Goudey pack and find Babe Ruth's "rookie" card, and then sending the card into their favorite TPG to be properly entombed. So whatever "long held hobby definition" of rookie cards that there has been, really hasn't been held for that long of a period.

[MetsBaseball1973]

What simply can't be disputed is that the M101 is Ruth's earliest solo card in a Red Sox uniform. On the merits of that alone, it will always be an enormous card in the hobby, coveted by many.

Btw Rats never offered his rookie opinion. Which card is it then?

[glchen]

Originally Posted by MetsBaseball1973

What simply can't be disputed is that the M101 is Ruth's earliest card in a Red Sox uniform. On the merits of that alone, it will always be an enormous card in the hobby, coveted by many.

Well, theoretically the 1915 Red Sox team postcard shows Ruth in a Red Sox uniform one year earlier.

[MetsBaseball1973]

Put me with guys who prefer solo cards over group/team shots. I should edit my last post to say "solo" card, to be more precise. Thanks.

[LincolnVT]

Originally Posted by glchen

Well, theoretically the 1915 Red Sox team postcard shows Ruth in a Red Sox uniform one year earlier.

True indeed, a much more rare than the M 101s!

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

Someone else can correct me if I've got any of this wrong, but Beckett's Rookie Card designation has always been given to cards they consider the first mainstream card of that player. The Sporting News cards were promotional cards while the Goudey cards were not. Even though they were issued well after his career started, they're often considered rookies because of that.

What I've never understood is the logic used in the case of the Ruth Sporting News card doesn't generally hold true when compared to other players. For example, Stan Musial has pre-1948 major league cards such as the 1947 Bond Bread version. Yet if you talk to most 100 people, 95 will consider his 1948 Bowman his rookie card. If the Sporting News card is Ruth's true rookie card, then there are a slew of key cards for other players that have been long recognized as rookies that really aren't.

I don't have a preference for one over the other, and to me, it doesn't really matter. But there's no industry consistency to these sorts of things.

I think one of the biggest issues with the 1933 Goudey designation of Ruth's rookie card is that it so far from when he actually debuted in the Major Leagues, which was in 1915. Ruth retired two years later in 1935. And there are a ton of card sets issued between 1915 and 1933. For the Musial card, at least it's within a couple of years, so you could still pick the 1948 Bowman or Leaf and have it still seem somewhat reasonable. However, for Ruth, there are simply too many years between these the M101-5 and 33 Goudey, that it just doesn't make sense.

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by glchen

I think one of the biggest issues with the 1933 Goudey designation of Ruth's rookie card is that it so far from when he actually debuted in the Major Leagues, which was in 1915. Ruth retired two years later in 1935. And there are a ton of card sets issued between 1915 and 1933. For the Musial card, at least it's within a couple of years, so you could still pick the 1948 Bowman or Leaf and have it still seem somewhat reasonable. However, for Ruth, there are simply too many years between these the M101-5 and 33 Goudey, that it just doesn't make sense.

Yeah, I can see that. And I think the many years off from the beginning of Ruth's career to the Goudey cards are a big problem when trying to justify them as rookie cards. His is a special case for sure.

I'm fine with calling cards like the Sporting News card for Ruth a true rookie. But the bigger question, then, is if the non-mainstream cards for other players (like the earlier Musial cards) should be considered the true rookies of those players - even if there isn't a large gap in space.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

...
I'm fine with calling cards like the Sporting News card for Ruth a true rookie. But the bigger question, then, is if the non-mainstream cards for other players (like the earlier Musial cards) should be considered the true rookies of those players - even if there isn't a large gap in space.

It's tough to figure out rookie cards for a lot of players, both modern and pre-war. For modern cards, you usually have a lot of sets who distribute the rookie card of the player in that year, and some of the parallels are limited to a specific # run like 25. So usually collectors try to choose the "best" card from the rookie year that's not limited to a small print run as the player's rookie card. (However, the cards that tend to be most valuable are the auto cards with the limited run for that rookie year.)

For pre-war, there are a lot of players like Cobb and Gehrig who have a whole bunch of cards issued around their rookie year, so it can be hard to figure out which one is the "best" rookie card. For Gehrig, I think most collectors choose the 1925 Exhibits as his rookie card, but some collectors don't like postcard size (or larger) cards as rookie cards. However, then the 1925-31 W590 was issued over a period of years, so collectors don't like that either.

I think most "advanced collectors" for pre-war rookie cards follow one of Phil's lists for HOF rookies or first cards issued or look at the list on Old Cardboard and pick the best one they like: Link. (If you click on the player's name on the list, you can see some of the different options.)

[nolemmings]

'Promotional' cards refers to cards used to promote something (i.e. the Sporting News cards had advertisements on the back

I see, kind of like Goudey Gum, wouldn't you say?

"This is one of a series of 240 Baseball Stars
BIG LEAGUE CHEWING GUM
GOUDEY GUM CO. BOSTON"

A photograph of a member of either American or National league will be found in every 5 and 10 cent package of our products. There are 200 to the set.
STANDARD BISCUIT CO,
SAN FRANCISCO, CAL."

[nolemmings]

Next tell me that Sporting News was regional. The m101 Ruths were distributed from California, Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, Louisiana and Washington DC. They were distributed by a national periodical--at that time likely the pre-eminent baseball paper--to anywhere the US mail was received.

Can you show me that Goudey gum was that widely distributed?

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I see, kind of like Goudey Gum, wouldn't you say?

"This is one of a series of 240 Baseball Stars
BIG LEAGUE CHEWING GUM
GOUDEY GUM CO. BOSTON"

A photograph of a member of either American or National league will be found in every 5 and 10 cent package of our products. There are 200 to the set.
STANDARD BISCUIT CO,
SAN FRANCISCO, CAL."

Fair enough - my definition of 'promotional' may have technically been a bit off and there's surely a better way of saying it. But the gist of my argument is that Beckett doesn't consider the Sporting News mainstream cards - which is why they have always called the Goudey Ruth cards his rookies. Right or wrong, I believe that has always been their stance.

[nolemmings]

Which is why I cited the wide distribution. What is "mainstream"? Is it when the East coast has bunches of a product? How much more "mainstream" can you get when anyone in the country who gets mail can receive the cards--and many likely did?

BTW, how many baseball cards did not promote a product? Old Judge, T206, Cracker Jack? Seems other than a couple of anonymous sets and most strip cards, that was the very purpose of the animal.

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Which is why I cited the wide distribution. What is "mainstream"? Is it when the East coast has bunches of a product? How much more "mainstream" can you get when anyone in the country who gets mail can receive the cards--and many likely did?

BTW, how many baseball cards did not promote a product? Old Judge, T206, Cracker Jack? Seems other than a couple of anonymous sets and most strip cards, that was the very purpose of the animal.

You'd have to ask Beckett for their definition. I used that term because, I honestly believe that's the term they've used in explaining away their rationale in old price guides. I've been trying to find their 'official' definition that I've seen in the past but not having any luck online.

Again, calling the 1933 Goudey Ruth's rookie card is not my contention any more than saying the Sporting News card isn't. I merely pointed out that Beckett doesn't consider the Sporting News card 'mainstream' enough by their own standards. Hence, the Rookie Card designation for Ruth and many others in the 1933 Goudey set.